The current study investigates how different types of company website designs influence first impressions, aesthetic evaluations, and memory performance. We implemented an online study with a between-subjects design to examine differences between three design categories identified by ten experts in a pretest: SCOFA (strong colours of one colour family), LAPIC (large pictures), and SAPAT (same amount of pictures and text). The data of 458 participants (52.2% female) reveal that a) after an exposure time of five seconds, response times for website-related attributes differ between the categories, b) LAPIC and SAPAT are perceived as more aesthetic than SCOFA, c) memory performance is best on SAPAT sites. These results underline the importance of first impressions of a site's appearance and provide practical guidance for web designers by showing what users associate with certain designs, which designs they prefer, and which sites are the most memorable.

When deciding between two options, settling can be difficult if one option is superior on one dimension but inferior on another. To arrive at a conclusion, people may gather further information, thereby running the risk of prolonging or blocking the decision-making process or even making suboptimal decisions. Here, we suggest that random decision aids may prove fruitful by reducing the need for further information. Five experiments (total N = 997) examined how information need is influenced after making a preliminary decision between two options and then receiving a suggestion from a random decision aid (a coin flip). Across studies, coin participants are less likely to request additional information (Study 1 and two follow-up studies, combined p = .021) and indicate a lower need for additional information (Study 2, p = .023, and Study 3, p = .001) compared to a control condition without a coin flip. Interestingly, participants do not necessarily adhere to the coin but stick to their preliminary decision as much as or even more than the control group, suggesting that the decision aid does not determine the decision outcome. This is true for hypothetical decisions between changing versus maintaining the status quo without an objectively correct solution (Studies 1, 1b, and 1c), for a decision between two options with an objectively correct solution (Study 2), and for a real monetary decision without an objectively correct solution (Study 3). Random decision aids may thus help to avoid decision blocks or the collection of too much information.

When people find it difficult to make a decision, they may opt to let chance decide. Flipping a coin, rolling a die, or using a counting-out rhyme are well-known decision aids. When individuals directly follow the aid’s suggestion, the decision aid acts as a decider. But when the decision aid elicits a felt response, such as liking or disliking the aid’s suggestion, and individuals act upon this response, the decision aid serves as a catalyst. This manuscript investigates whether and how many individuals apply these two strategies. In four studies (total N = 1135), we focus on coin flips as one of the most common decision aids and place an emphasis on the catalyst strategy. We examine (1) the frequency of previous experiences and future willingness to use a coin flip to make decisions, (2) which affective reactions accompany the coin flip when using it as catalyst, and (3) the circumstances under which individuals are more versus less likely to accept the use of a random decision-making aid to come to a decision. These results illustrate the catalyst phenomenon but also highlight the boundary conditions of individuals’ willingness to use randomness as an aid for decision making. We discuss directions for future research as well as potential applications.

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected so far are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver. In this project, we aim to fill this gap. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate whether secret-sharing might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test the valence of the secrets shared as potential driver of the hypothesized effect, as negative secrets might signal a high level of trust, but might also present a burden to the receiver. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods to investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focuses on the receiver and tests whether another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreases distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 investigates lay theories and tests how an observer perceives the relationship between two people who share secrets (vs. nonconfidential information). Study 3 tests whether these lay theories about sharing secrets are predictive of behavior, and how a sharer might choose secrets of negative or positive valence to decrease perceived distance on the receiver's side. Our results will contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other. This is a Registered Report and may have an associated publication; please check the article page on the journal site for any related articles.

No abstract